/I 


ADDRESSES 


DELIVERED BEFORE 

THE LAWYERS CLUB 

NEW YORK 


ON THE SUBJECT OF 

NATIONALISM 

By 

ROBERT C. MORRIS, D. C. L. 


Hon. LINDLEY M. GARRISON 


SATURDAY, DECEMBER 16th, 1916 





I 


.L2£T 










/ 


The Lawyers Club 
One Hundred and Fifteen Broadway 
New York City 


William Allen Butler, President 

Alton B. Parker, Vice-President Robert C. Morris, Vice-President 

R. G. Babbage, Secretary 
B. M. Fellows, Treasurer 
Edwin J. Beinecke, Chairman House Committee 


BOARD OF GOVERNORS 


H. S. Black 
R. G. Babbage 
Wm. Allen Butler 
Edgar M. Cullen 
Wm. C. Demorest 
John Hays Hammond 
Ernest Hall 
Job E. Hedges 

John A. 


George L. Ingraham 
Robert C. Morris 
Perley Morse 
Ormsby McHarg 
George McAneny 
Morgan J. O’Brien 
Alton B. Parker 
John B. Stanchfield 
Stewart 


COMMITTEE ON MEETINGS AND SPEAKERS 


Ormsby McHarg, 
Chairman 
Perley Morse, 
Secretary 

William Allen Butler, 

President of the Club (ex officio) 

Dean Emery 
William Forster 
Alfred W. Kiddle 
W. A. Mitchell 
Robert C. Morris 


Chester DeWitt Pugsley 
A. H. Spencer 
John A. Stewart 
Walter B. Walker, 
Henry A. Wise : 

E. C. Worden 


\ 


By transfer 
The White House. 















“NATIONALISM” 


MEETING OF 

THE LAWYERS CLUB 


Saturday, December 16th, 1916 
1:00 P. M. 


Mr. Robert C. Morris, Presiding. 

President William Allen Butler: Ladies and gentlemen, 
members of The Lawyers’ Club, our honored Guest, Judge Gar¬ 
rison : 

The Governors of the Club have planned to present to you 
to-day one of the most interesting and vital questions that is 
before us namely, Nationalism. It is a subject which should in¬ 
terest not only those in public life, but also every private citizen. 
In its fullest significance it stands for the duty of the government 
to the citizen, and, on the other hand, it stands for the duty of the 
citizen to the government. 

In these extraordinary times, when half the world is plunged 
in war, when Nationalism in Europe exemplifies a life and death 
struggle, it is well for us thinking men and women to stop in our 
daily pursuits and in our professional labors and to give an hour 
to this subject of Nationalism. Is it not the spirit of Americanism 
in its highest conception ? 

It is preeminently the privilege and duty of the members of 
the legal profession to awaken an interest in this subject at this 
critical time, to do our best to arouse the conscience of our people. 
If we succeed in doing this, we will be serving our country well. 

It is the custom of the Board of Governors to appoint a com¬ 
mittee to take charge of a meeting of this character, and the chair¬ 
man of this committee to-day is Mr. Robert C. Morris. He was 
asked to take this part in the meeting to-day, because, in our view, 
he possessed unusual qualifications in regard to the subject that 
we have before us this afternoon; a graduate of Yale, a student 
of Continental jurisprudence in Europe, counsel for the United 
States Government in the Venezuelan Claims Commission in 1903. 
an enthusiastic student of French law and international arbitra¬ 
tion. 

I take pleasure in introducing Mr. Morris, Vice-President of 
our Club. 


3 


ADDRESS OF MR. ROBERT C. MORRIS. 


Mr. Morris: Mr. President, our guests and fellow mem¬ 
bers of The Lawyers’ Club: 

Within the last few days there has been a broad discussion 
of the possibilities of peace between the warring nations in Eu¬ 
rope. Whether that peace shall come soon or whether it shall be 
deferred, it is in the interest of the United States that we should 
look at our own condition, have a house cleaning, if necessary, and 
prepare ourselves so that when peace does come we shall be able 
to take and to maintain our rightful position in the family of 
nations. 

The thought that we are discussing here to-day is in the 
mind of every thinking man and woman; yet there has never been 
any movement behind the thought, so far as I know there has 
never been a body of any sort that has taken up this subject and 
discussed it as we shall discuss it to-day. It has been reserved 
for The Lawyers’ Club to take the initiative in this matter, and we 
believe that if we will sow some seeds they may produce a growth 
of advantage and benefit to our country. 

Our subject is Nationalism—or, as some prefer to call it, 
Americanism. Both terms are appropriate, though I think that a 
combination of the two might best express the real point. We 
certainly desire a complete expression of our American life and 
our unquestioning loyalty to our country and its ideals. But the 
feeling is growing that this Americanism should express itself in 
a national sense. 

We have all had many searchings of heart in the last three 
years. We have been asking ourselves questions which until re¬ 
cently it would have been regarded as treason to harbor. The 
most pointed of these is, Is the United States, after all, a nation ? 
Are we a unified, cohesive state, or are we merely a collection of 
ill-assorted parishes? Is there such a thing as an American, or 
are we a combination of various jangling races? Does the aver¬ 
age American to-day regard Washington as the capital of his 
country, or is his first allegiance to his state ? 

The great achievement of the Civil War was the demonstra¬ 
tion that the free states could think nationally. Supercilious for¬ 
eigners who had always regarded us as a conglomerate, admitted 
that, after all, America was a nation. The men who fought those 
battles were fighting, not for their states, their counties, their 
towns, but for the Union. The triumph of the Northern cause 
was, primarily the triumph of the Union. In the last fifty years, 
hfctvever, many things have happened. At the end of the Civil 
War, the nation extended only a little beyond the Mississippi 
River. Since then an empire has been built up between that 
boundary and the Pacific Coast. Our population has increased 
from 30,000,000 to over 100,000,000. The population, at the time 
of the Civil War, was composed, in the great majority, of the 

4 


descendants of men who had fought in the Revolutionary War. 
Such immigration as there had been—and it had been much 
smaller than we commonly believe—was composed of people from 
Northwestern Europe, who easily adapted themselves to the new 
living conditions here. Since the Civil War, however, and espe¬ 
cially in the last twenty-five years, immigration, for the larger 
part from Southern, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, has 
been progressing on an unprecedented scale. Again the character 
of American life has fundamentally changed. Before the Civil 
War we were mainly an agricultural people. Only fifteen per cent, 
of our population lived in cities; we hadn’t a single city with a 
million inhabitants. Now nearly fifty per cent of Americans are 
city dwellers, engaged, not in tilling the soil, but in industrial pur¬ 
suits. I do not present any of these changes as in themselves ex¬ 
plaining any new attitude towards nationalism. Indeed, we must 
remember that, from our earliest history, two forces have 
struggled for supremacy; the one regarding the state as the main 
governmental unit, the other regarding the federal organization as 
the highest expression of America. All these influences have 
played their part in producing the situation that now confronts us. 
The European war has laid bare this problem in its extremest 
form. That is a struggle of nationalities; of great masses of 
people completely organized as political units. Each of the great 
nations involved—England, Germany, France, Russia—will come 
out of this cataclysm with a more powerful national sense than 
they have ever had before. The great lesson taught by this war 
is organization—organization of millions inhabiting large areas. 
In the competition, industrial and political, that will follow this 
war, only the closely compacted nation, the peoples that go on 
shoulder to shoulder, will stand much chance of survival. 

This is why I believe, and many others believe, that we have 
reached a great crisis. At this moment, when the need of nation¬ 
alism stands out so clearly, what kind of aspect do we present to 
the world ? Let us, even at the risk of a little pessimism, picture 
the situation in its real colors. 

The fundamental need of any nation is the power of self- 
defense. I think the time has happily gone by when a man could 
not make this statement without being attacked as a gory militarist. 
I think that few who are present this afternoon will deny the need 
of an efficient army and navy. It is hardly necessary to argue that 
point any more. The aspect chiefly interesting in the present con¬ 
nection is the value of this army and navy as nationalizing in¬ 
fluences. Nothing would so impress the average citizen that he is 
a citizen of a unified government as a course of military training 
for its defense. Universal service would accomplish great things 
in improving the physical and moral character of our youth. It 
would make them stronger men; it would give them greater ca¬ 
pacity to command because it would first teach them how to obey. 
It would immensely increase our industrial efficiency as well as 

5 


make us better citizens. But above all, it would teach us this great 
lesson of nationalism. A citizen army, ready, at a moment’s 
notice, to obey the call of the President, and march to victory as 
a homogeneous unit—as soldiers, not of New York or Connecticut 
or South Carolina or Oregon, but of the United States—what 
could possibly have a greater influence in knitting together our 
people ? 

Yet what is the present tendency in the matter of defense? 
In our navy, it is true, we have a central organization. Thank 
God, there is no navy of New York, or of Massachusetts, but a 
navy of the United States. Yet in the organization of the navy 
this disintegrating influence makes its presence felt. For fifty 
years the states have attempted to get certain good things for 
themselves out of the navy. The Congressional naval committees 
control its organization. These committees have managed it in 
the way that would best promote, not national defense, but the 
interests of their localities. The most important factors in a navy, 
after the ships and the personnel, are the naval bases. In fact, a 
navy cannot operate as a unit without such bases. Yet, how many 
here realize that, in any comprehensive sense, the American navy 
has no bases at all—nothing like Rosyth in England, and Kiel and 
Wilhelmshafen in Germany? Why do we lack such essentials of 
naval warfare ? Simply because our Congress does not think in a 
national but in a local sense. Instead of great bases, we have a 
system of navy yards scattered along the Atlantic and Pacific 
coasts. These have been established and maintained purely for 
the benefit of the states in which they are located. Their existence 
means the distribution of so many millions a year in each locality; 
that is the reason they are suffered to exist. Yet of the eight or 
nine such stations, only two have a channel deep enough to admit 
our largest ships—our fighting ships—at all times and in all con¬ 
ditions. Our greatest naval experts have time and again pointed 
out to Congress the danger of this system, and implored it to 
abolish these useless navy yards and establish three or four naval 
bases that would really serve the purpose of naval defense. But the 
Congressmen have so far refused to see this question from the 
national viewpoint; these very yards were useful for particular 
states, they “put money into circulation” in their districts, and 
that, in their eyes, was more important than organizing the navy 
on national lines. 

In the matter of the army, the situation is much worse. In 
the recent army legislation the spirit of localism simply ran riot. 
The European war revealed our position of childish unprepared¬ 
ness ; public sentiment, especially in the large eastern states, man¬ 
ifested an insistent demand that Congress could not ignore. Here, 
then, was presented the opportunity for a fine display of patriot¬ 
ism, of Americanism—of the national spirit. In the face of this 
opportunity what did Congress do ? It responded by a saturnalia 
of localism. It rejected all proposals to establish a citizen reserve 

6 


on national lines, with headquarters in Washington. A lobby, 
composed of representatives of the state militias, encamped in the 
capitol, seized Congress by the throat and compelled it to pass the 
militia pay bill. This measure which, in itself, was simply a 
scheme to take millions out of the federal treasury and distribute 
it among the states, had haunted the halls of Congress for years; 
no previous session, however, had had the nerve to pass it. But 
the late Congress, acting under pressure from their districts, used 
the existing sentiment for national defense as a cloak for creating 
a brand new “Pork Barrel.” This measure, instead of establishing 
a national citizen reserve, creates forty-eight little armies under 
the jurisdiction of the states. In only one sense is the new 
scheme a national one—and that is that the federal treasury pays 
for it. About 420,000 men, when the system is complete, will go 
upon the federal payroll. According to the statement made by 
Chairman Hay, these 420,000 men will draw about $100,000,000 a 
year from the federal cash box—and this is only a starter. I 
know of no event in our recent history more discouraging to the 
champions of nationalism than this legislation. It does not pro¬ 
mote national defense; it merely permits forty-eight armies under 
the jurisdiction of forty-eight states to wade knee-deep into the 
federal treasury. 

Another thing that must be revised in the interest of national¬ 
ism is our whole system of national finance. Only an extended 
volume could do justice to this subject. Recently the efficiency 
experts have made elaborate studies of our federal system of dis¬ 
bursing money; so high an authority as the late Senator Aldrich 
told us that decent business methods at Washington could elim¬ 
inate waste to the extent of $300,000,000 a year. That is, our 
present crazy system means that we are throwing away nearly 
$1,000,000 a day. We have heard much recently about a federal 
budget. Do you know that the United States is the only civilized 
nation in the world that does not have the budget system ? A real 
budget, I may explain, is an estimate of moneys needed for the 
current year, such estimates being prepared by the executive 
department and transmitted to the legislative. In budget coun¬ 
tries—in all countries, that is, except our own—the legislature 
votes this budget or refuses to do so. It can decrease items or en¬ 
tirely strike them out; it cannot increase them. In other words, 
the executive department simply tells the legislature the money 
that it needs for the conduct of public business. The legislature 
scrutinizes and criticises and makes the grant. It lays a tax that 
will produce the amount desired; that is, it spends with due regard 
for its income. This is ordinary plain business sense. But that is 
not our system. We have ten or a dozen separate Congressional 
committees which vote appropriations as the spirit moves or the 
exigencies of local politics demand. These committees vote with 
little reference to the recommendations of the executive depart¬ 
ment and with no consideration for the state of the treasury—in- 

7 


deed, with no knowledge of its condition. I have no time to go 
into this unsavory state of affairs in detail. It is, as Congressman 
Fitzgerald, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the pres¬ 
ent Congress, says, a “frightful mess.” Why is it that Congress in¬ 
sists on retaining this crazy system and stubbornly refuses to adopt 
a budget plan ? The answer is simple. A budget means federali¬ 
zation of expenditures—it means nationalism. Present methods 
mean the Pork Barrel, which is only another expression for the 
reign of localism in finance. The Congressman wishes to expend 
money in his district, where it will help him politically and insure 
his re-election. He wishes to get a million or so to dredge a river 
or a creek that is perhaps dry six or eight months in the year. He 
does not wish to dredge the stream primarily because it will pro¬ 
mote commerce, but because it will give his constituents so much 
money to spend. Had we a budget system, a central authority at 
Washingon would dredge rivers and harbors, not with the idea of 
helping district politics, but with an eye solely to promoting the 
country’s commerce. Its purpose, that is, would be national, not 
local. Similarly, it would build post offices and court houses 
where the nation’s business required, and not where a Congress¬ 
man’s political necessities indicated. And this same idea runs 
through all our financial legislation—spending federal money, not 
for federal purposes, but for state purposes. Do you know that all 
over this country, especially in the South and West, there are 
beautiful marble court houses that are used only a few days in the 
year? At Texarkana, Texas, for example, the government a few 
years ago built a “monumental” court house, costing over $100,- 
000. It has an elaborate court room, a robing room for the Judge, 
bath rooms, district attorney’s office, and the like. The records at 
Washington show that this is used for court purposes three or 
four days every year; the rest of the time it is closed, as silent and 
deserted as a tomb. Yet Chicago, a city that does a postal busi¬ 
ness of $20,000,000 a year, has just succeeded, after years of effort, 
in getting money to purchase a sadly needed post office site. Did 
you ever hear of the Trinity River in Texas ? Congress has already 
voted about $3,000,000 to dig a four-foot channel in this stream. 
Yet the Trinity has so little water that, when a Congressional com¬ 
mittee visited it—so runs the story—they were asked whether they 
wished to go up in an automobile or a buckboard. That probably 
is a joke; what is not a joke, but a solemn fact, set down in the 
government records, is that the engineers, when they reported on 
the improvement of this stream, recommended that artesian wells 
be built to supply it with water. Yet the last Congress, which 
voted a large sum for the Trinity River, refused—until President 
Wilson practically forced the issue—to grant money to dredge the 
channel in New York Harbor, the largest port in the world! Here 
we have a rather striking illustration, in the financial side, of 
localism as opposed to nationalism. 

Is there any such thing as an American foreign policy? Is 

8 


the United States sufficiently a coherent power to maintain a self- 
respecting position in the world ? This, after all, is the most im¬ 
portant phase of our subject. It is our failure, in the last two 
years, to act rationally towards the new questions of the hour that 
has forced this whole question of Americanism to the front. The 
European convulsion has put us to the test; unfortunately, we 
have not met that test. I know of no more humiliating episode in 
our political history than the issues of the late campaign. We saw 
huge electric signs calling for unquestioning loyalty to our 
country; we saw newspaper editorials by the thousands reminding 
us that, first of all, we were Americans and that we should behave 
like Americans. A man who constantly insists that he is honest 
naturally becomes an object of suspicion; likewise, a nation which 
constantly makes an appeal to the patriotic instinct, confesses that 
it is lacking in it. Visitors from the interior have told us that the 
events which have so greatly stirred many of us—the endless vio¬ 
lations of neutrality—have aroused little interest. These localities 
have been busied with their own affairs; the problems of the State 
Department have been altogether too remote to arouse any but the 
most languid attention. That the United States as a nation has 
any part to play, that it was its business to assert its rights, to make 
its presence felt in the present world bankruptcy, perhaps even to 
take a leading part in the peace negotiations—all this has hardly 
entered our popular consciousness. 

Yet, this state of mind cannot go on if the nation is to endure. 
It is not a question as to whether we wish to defend our rights and 
play our part in world politics. We shall have to do so or we shall 
perish. President Wilson has said that, in any future war like the 
present, the United States will not be able to remain neutral. 
Already a movement under the name of the League to Enforce 
Peace, has gained great headway, not only here but in Europe. 
This is a plan by which the world’s greatest and most representa¬ 
tive nations will join forces to preserve peace; the central idea is 
that any nation which, without good cause, makes war on any 
other, will do so knowing that it will have to fight the Allied 
League. President Wilson has given a certain form of approval 
to this conception; it is not impossible that some such league will 
be formed. If we enter it, do you realize what it means? It cer¬ 
tainly means an end to that isolation which we have always re¬ 
garded as the keystone of American foreign policy. It means an 
alliance with the great powers of Europe. Essentially it is the 
establishment of a new Balance of Power, to which the United 
States will be a party. If any nation should defy the principles of 
the League and make war, then we would be part of a universal 
conflict. 

But there are other national policies which are already with 
us. There, for example, is the accepted basis of such foreign poli¬ 
cies as we have—the Monroe Doctrine. Upon this the United 
States has, at times, concentrated a real outburst of national feel¬ 
ing. We did so immediately after the Civil War, when we ordered 

9 


the French to leave Mexico, and so destroyed Maximilian’s Em¬ 
pire. We did so, in 1895, when the whole people, from the At¬ 
lantic to the Pacific, stood firmly behind President Cleveland in the 
Venezuelan matter. It is not unlikely, however, if we are to main¬ 
tain the Monroe Doctrine and preserve the free soil of America 
for Americans, that we shall have to do more than this. For a 
century the European balance of power has protected the Monroe 
Doctrine. No European nation has cared to go to war with the 
United States, since such a war would require all her energies, and 
so leave her exposed to annihilating attacks at home. But sup¬ 
posing either side in this war—it might not matter which—so 
completely crushes the other as to have no fear of being attacked. 
Then the balance of power would be destroyed and the real pro¬ 
tection of the Monroe Doctrine removed. 

There are other foreign questions which are every day assum¬ 
ing greater importance. There is our attitude towards Mexico, 
the Central American Republics and South America. In the case 
of the Republics of Haiti, San Domingo and Nicaragua, we have 
already violated American tradition by establishing what are vir¬ 
tually protectorates. Their future is already in our hands. Most 
pressing is the terrible problem of Mexico. How long can we tol¬ 
erate such a slaughterhouse to the south of us ? Only the fact that 
the European nations have had their hands full has prevented 
Mexico from bringing on a great international crisis. Americans 
may have so little national sentiment that they contentedly see 
American lives and property destroyed by bandits; but English¬ 
men, Frenchmen and Germans will not tolerate such depredations. 
They will demand that we stop this or they will stop it themselves. 
Then what becomes of our Monroe Doctrine? In the Far East 
another foreign problem looms up in the shape of China. Are we 
to sit idly by while this ancient empire is destroyed and Americans 
are forced out of far eastern trade ? Evidently here are issues that 
cannot be solved by forty-eight jangling states; only a unified 
nation can deal with them. In foreign policy, as in everything, the 
call is to nationalism. 

Another feature of our American life that illustrates this 
same absence of the national spirit is our supervision of the rail¬ 
roads. These modern highways are the very lifeblood of the na¬ 
tion. More, perhaps, than any other influence, do they knit our 
people into one great economic unit. No single force could exer¬ 
cise such power in making us one mighty people. But our system of 
governmental supervision is rapidly producing chaos. About thirty 
years ago, in face of demonstrated evils, arose the idea of railroad 
commissions. Their purpose was to keep watch over these neces¬ 
saries of life, in the interest of the people, to see that the great 
popular need, adequate service at reasonable rates, was secured. 
At first these commissions were advisory; gradually their powers 
have increased until now they have practically the power to levy 
rates—and Congress lately, exercising the same power, has even 

10 


fixed wages. Fundamentally these railroad commissions were 
sound. Railroads serve so vital a purpose that the public neces¬ 
sarily has the right to insist on decent management. I find no 
fault with interstate commerce commissions and railroad commis¬ 
sions ; but the prevailing system of regulation is disrupting in its 
tendencies. Besides the Interstate Commerce Commission, the 
railroads are subject to the jurisdiction of forty-eight legisla¬ 
tures. The numerous state commissions consume so much of 
their time that the managers have had to run their railroads on 
the side. I am informed that all the railroads make in the neigh¬ 
borhood of 2,000,000 reports a year ; the money and time they 
spend in state investigations are without end. They are beset by 
a bewildering array of state requirements. The kind of drinking 
cup that is lawful in one state is not lawful in another; the num¬ 
ber of men employed changes as state lines are passed; safety ap¬ 
pliances that do for one commonwealth will not be accepted by an¬ 
other. Requirements as to capitalization, as to forms of reports, 
differ in distracting fashion. There are even greater and more dis¬ 
integrating evils. The Constitution gave Congress the right to 
regulate commerce among the states, in order to prevent one state 
from erecting barriers against the others. But our state railroad 
commissions are doing precisely this thing. Alabama, Mississippi 
and Arkansas enforce rates on their intrastate railroads whose 
purpose it is to discriminate in favor of local products—to keep 
out competitive products from other states. Does this sort of leg¬ 
islation tend to national unity? Is it surprising, in view of the 
fact that the railroads have forty-nine bosses—the states and the 
Federal Government—that they have been regulated, to a consid¬ 
erable extent, for punitive reasons and that railroad credit has 
sunk so low that needed improvements cannot be made? The 
real remedy is simple. There should be only one jurisdiction over 
the railroads, and that should be a federal jurisdiction. The rail¬ 
roads should be nationalized. The states should surrender their 
regulatory power to the Interstate Commerce Commission. The 
change would be a great gain, not only from the standpoint of 
transportation, but of national growth. The steel bands of the 
railroads would do much to bind us into one great union. 

There are numerous other changes we could make in our na¬ 
tional organization that would have the same effect. The great 
subject of social legislation immediately suggests itself. Why 
should we have forty-eight separate laws on employers’ liability, 
workmen’s compensation, old age insurance, working hours for 
labor, sanitary factories, mothers’ pensions, and all the other 
items that make up the program of “social justice”? If we are to 
have these things at all, why should they not be a matter of fed¬ 
eral control ? The latest Congress, among its many sins, passed at 
least one good law—that regulating child labor. I am not so 
much interested in the details of that particular measure, but in 
the principle. For it establishes the principle that the working con- 

11 


ditions of children are a matter that the nation should control. A 
splendid step that, in the direction of a nationalized Americanism! 
But if this is true of child labor, why not of the other reforms I 
have mentioned? And if true of social legislation, why not of 
other matters of national interest? Is there any greater neces¬ 
sity in America to-day than a national marriage and divorce law, 
or a national incorporation law ? 

All these things I insist on for themselves and for the excellent 
effect they will have in our national organization. Above all such 
considerations, however, I insist upon them for their influence in 
developing the national consciousness. They will make life more 
efficient; more important, they will make us a nation. Our 
greatest need at this critical time is the American citizen—the man 
whose civilian sense spans a continent and whose loyalty compre¬ 
hends, not only his own city, and his own state, but above them all, 
that country which we call the United States of America. 


President Butler: Gentlemen, when the Governors of the 
Club selected this very serious subject of which you have already 
heard the interesting and learned words of Mr. Morris, they 
unanimously agreed that the former Secretary of War, Judge 
Garrison, was the man above all others, who was qualified to pre¬ 
sent this subject to the Club. It was my privilege to extend 
the invitation to Judge Garrison. Calling at Mr. Hornblower’s 
office, I found him out of town. Calling him on the long distance 
phone he said to me he could not possibly come to this meeting, 
on account of professional engagements, and the time that it 
would take to prepare a serious address for this Club. My an¬ 
swer to him was that he had been for thirty years preparing this 
speech, and that his proposition about time was not well taken. 

The Judge still declined and I, as a lawyer in difficulty, ap¬ 
plied for an extension of time. With his uniform courtesy, he 
granted me that for twenty-four hours. I immediately applied to 
my Board of Governors, and I assure you that the team play in 
that Board is absolutely perfect. We can give points to any 
Baseball Association. I appointed Judge Cullen, ex-Chief Judge 
of the Court of Appeals, to wait on the Judge the moment he 
should return to town. When my extension of time was up I 
called him up and he said, “Oh, it is all right; it will give me the 
greatest pleasure to address the Club.” “That Committee you 
turned loose on me you had better call a battery, for they were 
perfectly irresistible.” 

Now it is a great pleasure to us to have a member of our own 
profession address us on this subject. The Judge for many years 
held an eminent position in New Jersey as a lawyer, controlling 
important interests. He held a preeminent position in New Jer¬ 
sey as Vice Chancellor; but we think of him especially in his 

12 


work as the Secretary of War; and particularly, of the great ser¬ 
vice he was to this country in connection with the Panama Canal 
at a time when those slides in the Culebra Cut threatened the very 
existence of that great waterway. He acted with great courage, 
wisely, and without regard to what it cost, because the Panama 
Canal is a military and naval proposition, and as such for this 
country, cost has nothing to do with it. Also, when that trouble 
was overcome, the efficiency that was added to the Canal for the 
United States, from a commercial point of view, was also carried 
to a high point by the Secretary of War. 

We think of him, however, especially as one promoting a 
continental army for this country, and creating a unit of effi¬ 
ciency that would form the basis of an adequate defense force to 
take care of this country, not only in our relations to Mexico, not 
only in our relations and in connection with any internal trouble, 
but an army that could be expanded and capable of protecting this 
country against any attack from any foreign foe. All the Judge’s 
work in regard to this great national problem is so well known to 
you, I need not refer to it. 

I have the honor of introducing Judge Garrison. 


ADDRESS OF HON. LINDLEY M. GARRISON. 


Mr. President, Members of the Club, Ladies and Gen¬ 
tlemen : I thank you for this generous reception. If it means 
what I hope it means, I heartily reciprocate. 

I was asked to come here this afternoon and address you 
upon the question of Nationalism. Neither your president when 
inviting me, nor the Committee who so courteously attended upon 
me gave me any definition of the term, and I know of no satis¬ 
factory one. If Nationalism always meant the same thing to any 
one, or often meant the same thing to everyone, it would be easier 
to discuss—but it means so many different things to so many dif¬ 
ferent people that it is necessary to deal with it obliquely rather 
than directly. 

In the sense in which it is sometimes used I am utterly and 
unalterably opposed to it. In its truer and proper sense I am en¬ 
thusiastically and wholeheartedly in favor of it. 

It will be necessary to deal quite as much with what it is not 
and should not be as with what it is and should be. 

A brief retrospect brings us to the beginnings of our Gov¬ 
ernment—of our Nation. 

Although it is impossible for us with any vividness to bring 
before us the anxieties and the appalling difficulties that con¬ 
fronted and embarrassed the men who moulded our Nation, we 
can realize many of the obstacles they had to surmount and can 

13 


tell from the results of their labor what they endeavored to 
achieve. 

They were unalterably opposed to any form of dictatorial 
Government. They wanted no despotism benevolent or other¬ 
wise. They realized that an unrestrained mob was as bad as an 
unrestrained monarch and they discarded both. They determined 
upon the principle of a representative democracy and staked their 
all thereon. They determined what powers government should 
have and distributed them as wisdom dictated, and provided for 
the exercise thereof by representatives chosen by the people from 
time to time. 

The primary unit, of course, was the individual citizen. 
Him they conceived to be self-reliant, and self-respecting; want¬ 
ing to be left alone to work out his own destiny in his own way; 
scornful of gratuities from government; determined that there 
should be no special privileges, and demanding only equality be¬ 
fore the law; eager to support the government and not even 
entertaining the suspicion that the government could be expected 
to support him. 

They realized with exceeding clearness that the only possi¬ 
bility of successful self-government lay in having that govern¬ 
ment close to the people. That home rule is of the very essence 
of democracy. 

Power grows by what it feeds upon—and power fed upon 
power tends to tyranny. 

The Government, therefore, which was to lay down and en¬ 
force the rules of civic conduct was the local government; the 
home government; the state government. The personnel of this 
government is chosen directly by the people from among them¬ 
selves. It deals with the daily life of the people. It regulates the 
civic conduct of man to man and of man to the state. It meets 
local needs with local remedies and reflects the peculiar genius of 
each locality. 

It was the ideal conception for a self-governing democracy. 

There was then left for consideration those vital and neces¬ 
sary functions which must be operated nationally; those collective 
duties which imperatively call for a federal agency—a central 
government, and so they provided for the general government. 
To this government they confided the most ample and complete 
powers to function nationally upon all national concerns. 

Unfortunately natural tendencies of the individual are re¬ 
flected in his government. It is a natural tendency of all of us 
to let others bear our burdens—if they will. Duties of the state 
government become burdensome and costly; by one excuse or an¬ 
other they are passed on to the federal government. 

Slowly at first but rapidly gaining in speed and momentum; 
with respect to minor matters at first but quickly reaching those 
of vast moment; this tendency has gone on and on, not only un¬ 
checked, but constantly encouraged. 

14 


From the supine, nerveless grasp of the state governments 
there has passed and is passing power after power, function after 
function, duty after duty. Duties which inhere in their very 
nature are permitted to go from it and to be performed by the 
general government to whose nature they are essentially alien. 

This is the real danger. 

In this is contained the seeds of destruction. 

.It would be a matter of most alarming significance if it could 
be viewed only in its unwise and irrational aspects. It would be 
bad enough if we could see in it only an utterly unwise and in¬ 
excusable overloading of the central government—an overload¬ 
ing sure to produce a break by its very weight. Or if it could be 
viewed only as a deplorable and irrational transfer of functions 
from one agency close to the object of their exercise, an agency 
therefore competent and proper to perform these duties, to a dis¬ 
tant agency which, in the very nature of things, is uninformed 
and inapt. If it would suffice to condemn it merely as a cowardly 
evasion of duty by the states and a most unwise and dangerous 
aggrandization of power by the federal government; but far tran¬ 
scending in importance all such consideration is the knowledge 
that this tendency casts itself athwart the very principles of our 
government. It undermines the foundation on which it rests. It 
twists and rends its parts asunder. 

Nothing can be further from the spirit which animated those 
who founded our nation than to have the federal government 
exercising power directly upon the citizen in the activities of his 
daily life and regulating and controlling his civic conduct. This 
does not constitute an impingement upon home rule upon the very 
basis of representative democracy as portrayed in the Constitu¬ 
tion—it abolishes it. 

No temporary alleviation of disturbing conditions can com¬ 
pensate for the irreparable damage done by this method of 
remedy. No cry of efficiency can excuse or palliate it. If the 
American people have tried sufficiently the federal system and 
the distribution of powers necessary to its proper operation, and 
have determined to abandon such system and adopt another one, 
that must be done in accordance with our organic law and the 
Constitution must be amended to permit it to be done. Other¬ 
wise we are substituting an unconstitutional government for a 
constitutional government, a government of men for a govern¬ 
ment of law—the very antithesis of the basis on which our gov¬ 
ernment was conceived. The one firm structure of safety of our 
republic rests upon the Constitution. Disregard it and you not 
only have not the government as planned and conceived, but you 
have no government of law. Strike down constitutional limita¬ 
tions and there is no limitation excepting the unrestrained will of 
those temporarily invested with power. Unrestrained by law, by 
organic law, you have a despotism, whether its dictators be one or 
many. 


15 


To some people this connotes Nationalism. This is what 
they mean by Nationalism. This is what they advocate as Na¬ 
tionalism. 

They are not only blind to the dangers of the process they 
advocate but they glory in centering more and more power and 
function after function in the federal government. The pretext 
is efficiency and its supposed benefits cause them to disregard and 
to be utterly oblivious of the effect upon the whole structure of 
our government. 

To me this is the very negation of Nationalism. 

Nationalism to me has a two-fold aspect. One from the 
viewpoint of the national entity and one from the viewpoint of 
the citizen. 

From the viewpoint of the national entity, Nationalism is 
the possession of and exercise by national government of every 
power and function necessary to perform properly the collective 
duties and to fulfill completely the collective obligations of the 
nation. 

From the viewpoint of the citizen, Nationalism is the yield¬ 
ing, not in theory, but in practice, of his mind, his heart and his 
spirit to the welfare of the Nation. The contribution of his mate¬ 
rial means, and of his physical force to its preservation and de¬ 
fense. It means service and sacrifice, devotion and loyalty. 

Apart from religious consideration man primarily loves him¬ 
self—then his fellow creatures and lastly the tie which binds men 
together in the unity of government. 

This latter sentiment therefore must be cultivated. It is a 
refinement of civilization; it is not a natural instinct. National¬ 
ism for the citizen therefore consists in thinking and feeling and 
acting nationally. Fifty years ago the Nation went through the 
storm and stress of civil war to ascertain whether such a govern¬ 
ment as ours could hang together if its parts sought to pull apart. 
The latest test has been whether it can hang together if its citi¬ 
zens allow alien sympathies to come between them and their love 
and loyalty to it. Happily it has survived both tests. 

There are other and equally dangerous ones which threaten 
its integrity. They are exceedingly insidious and they cloak 
themselves in attractive disguises. 

One of the most dangerous of them is that which utilizes the 
natural and universal abhorrence of war as a reason for not pre¬ 
paring for its possibilities. Self defense is the cardinal duty of 
a nation. The National government is the only agency that can 
make proper preparation and that must make proper preparation. 
To deny its power or to question the imperative necessity of its 
exercising that power is little short of treason. 

This is a duty which the federal government has neglected. 
In this particular the modern tendency has been reversed. The 
national government flinched and faltered and sought to pass its 

16 


neglected duty to the states. The result was and was bound to be 
a lamentable failure. 

All such movements either way are against the inherent na¬ 
ture of our government. Each agency must operate only in its 
own sphere. Each must do fully and completely its own duty and 
not impinge upon the other. Only then can its existence as 
planned and conceived be continued and preserved. This then 
is true Nationalism—full, complete and wise exercise of national 
function by the nation’s agencies, supported, encouraged and in¬ 
vigorated by the national attitude of the citizen. 

There is yet one remaining meaning sometimes attributed to 
the word which requires brief consideration. I refer to Na¬ 
tionalism as distinguished from Internationalism. 

You will recall that Washington in that memorable address 
which marked his exit from public life dwelt with impressive em¬ 
phasis on this phase of the matter. 

“Europe,” he said, “has a set of primary interests, which to 
us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be en¬ 
gaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essen¬ 
tially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be un¬ 
wise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary 
vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and col¬ 
lisions of her friendships, or enmities. Our detached and distant 
situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If 
we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period 
is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external 
annoyance ; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the 
neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously 
respected. When belligerent nations, under the impossibility of 
making acquisitions upon us will not lightly hazard the giving us 
provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest 
guided by our justice shall counsel. Why forego the advantages 
of so peculiar a situation ? Why quit our own to stand upon for¬ 
eign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of 
any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the 
toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? 
’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with 
any portion of the foreign world * * *. 

“Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establish¬ 
ments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust 
to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” There 
spoke the Prophet and the Seer. 

The solemn significance of these words must not escape us. 

The aspiration of every earnest, honest heart for universal 
and everlasting peace must not blind us to the everlasting danger 
attending some of the suggestions for attaining and preserving 
that condition. 

Based upon theory and in the face of experience they must 
be tested by reason and not by sentiment. 

17 


Any proposition which requires the United States to enter 
into an alliance with the other nations of the world and to engage 
to join with those who side with the belligerent found to be 
Righteous against the belligerent found to be Wrongful should 
be tested in the fiery furnace of fierce debate and discussion before 
it should be accepted and acted upon. 

Immediate acceptance of this proposal can only be based 
upon the utterly fallacious assumption that because parties have 
agreed upon what is to be done therefore it is as if it were done. 

If this were as true as it is false, the whole of human life 
would be so different from what it now is that we would not 
recognize it for the same thing. The making and breaking of 
agreements is almost as regular as the tides. Most of the time 
of most of the courts and of most of the lawyers is taken up with 
broken agreement and the consequences following thereon. 

If then the making of an agreement is not the ending but in 
a very real sense is only the beginning of the business—where is 
there any end in sight? 

If the United States is engaged, as suggested, in a universal 
alliance she is perforce a party to every quarrel the wide world 
over. Is it not inevitable that instead of pursuing her natural 
development along lines expressive of her innate genius and 
energy she will surely be diverted therefrom and plunged into 
alien matters utterly foreign to her real concern and her best and 
vital interests? 

I cannot escape the conviction that such a result is inevitable. 
I cannot reach the conclusion that inviting such a result is ra¬ 
tional. 

No acceptable reason occurs to me which warrants or justi¬ 
fies the United States in becoming by its own voluntary act a 
party to all the quarrels of all the nations of the earth. They 
always have quarreled from the dawn of history. We have it 
upon the highest authority that there have been wars and that 
there will be wars and rumors of war and that the end is not yet; 
that men cry "‘Peace, Peace” when there is no peace. 

Civilization has done much for mankind. It has laid layer 
upon layer of refinement over his innate primitive passions. It 
has not eradicated them. It has only submerged them. It has 
taught him self-discipline and self-control. But when discipline 
is relaxed and control removed elemental passions operate in 
modern man as in primitive man. 

Almost any theory of reform is feasible if you could remake 
mankind to conform to the theory. 

The only theory worth a farthing is that which conforms to 
the essential facts of life and of humanity and takes account of 
the eternal and never-changing elements thereof. 

The proposal will undoubtedly be vigorously urged upon the 
ground that our self interest should be disregarded and we should 

18 


embark upon this course upon the high and lofty conception of 
our duty toward mankind. This is a high and lofty conception 
and should always be in the forefront of any consideration of any 
action by any nation. But this consideration in this connection 
does not seem to me to alter the conviction which otherwise would 
be reached. 

We have reached the conclusion that agreements are not self 
executing; that if we enter into a world alliance of the char¬ 
acter suggested the inevitable result would be to draw us into 
every controversy the world over and bring us into frequent con¬ 
flict with nations with whom we would otherwise remain on terms 
of perfect amity; that it would cause us to be engaged and in¬ 
volved constantly with matters with which we have no proper 
concern. It is difficult for me to see how this is serving mankind 
as a whole. 

A self-respecting nation walking the path of rectitude; 
strictly attending to its own affairs; seeking no offense and giving 
none; seems to me to be better serving the interests of mankind 
than could possibly be done by a nation voluntarily crossing the 
path of every other nation in the world, pledged to feel offense 
where none was intended, and taking up the quarrels of others in 
which it has and can have no proper concern. 

With Washington’s conception of Nationalism in this sense 
I am therefore in entire accord. 

I hope to see our Nation grow stronger with each passing 
period, not only by making the best use of its own functions but 
by the casting off of those alien duties laid upon it by the govern¬ 
ment of the states. 

I hope to see the state governments take up their own proper 
burdens and duties and bear them manfully. 

I hope to see the citizens of our country appreciate the tre¬ 
mendous privilege and opportunity that is theirs and stand erect 
and self-reliant; zealous in the support of their government and 
jealous that it shall function so as to preserve those benefits for 
them and their posterity. 


19 


PRESS OF H. K. BREWER & CO. 
58 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK 



L/BRARY of 


CONGRESS 



» 028 070 891 


4 


